- Thread starter Criss Colon
- Start date
MORE,..."GOOD NEWS" For The DR!!!!!!............."Babies Having Babies"!!!!!!!!
Many factors come together in this issue: lack of education, lack of positive role models.
Then because of religion there?s the belief that our only purpose to come into this world is to reproduce and multiply, and that a woman is only complete an fulfilled after giving birth.
Then there is also the economic factor. Children are the ones who will take care of you when you're old. There are no pensions, no government assistance for the elderly. Without kids, you?ll be on your own. The more kids a person has, the more chances they will have to be taken care of in the future.....and by someone who cares about you.
There is also the emotional factor: Children are forever, men come and go. A child is someone that you will always have a relationship with, no matter what.
Something about the article: If you read it you?d imply that pregnant teens are "forced" to be homeless. That is very rare these days. No pregnant teenager is FORCED to go into the street. Actually I?ve met many parents with pregnant teens who want to get the girl out of the bf?s house and back into their home, so she can be taken care of properly.
Parents are always willing to take care of them. Even if they?re upset at first, that goes away pretty quickly.
Sometimes the parents even allow a girl to have a relationship with an older boy, just because they fear that if they don?t she?ll run away with him.
Then because of religion there?s the belief that our only purpose to come into this world is to reproduce and multiply, and that a woman is only complete an fulfilled after giving birth.
Then there is also the economic factor. Children are the ones who will take care of you when you're old. There are no pensions, no government assistance for the elderly. Without kids, you?ll be on your own. The more kids a person has, the more chances they will have to be taken care of in the future.....and by someone who cares about you.
There is also the emotional factor: Children are forever, men come and go. A child is someone that you will always have a relationship with, no matter what.
Something about the article: If you read it you?d imply that pregnant teens are "forced" to be homeless. That is very rare these days. No pregnant teenager is FORCED to go into the street. Actually I?ve met many parents with pregnant teens who want to get the girl out of the bf?s house and back into their home, so she can be taken care of properly.
Parents are always willing to take care of them. Even if they?re upset at first, that goes away pretty quickly.
Sometimes the parents even allow a girl to have a relationship with an older boy, just because they fear that if they don?t she?ll run away with him.
Last edited:
13 month old baby....
[video=youtube;3RRWI6O57IE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RRWI6O57IE[/video]
[video=youtube;3RRWI6O57IE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RRWI6O57IE[/video]
" Lack of education and lack of positive role models is recipe for disaster in any child's live no matter what country they are in.
A child may get by without 1 of the 2, but both the child is a DONE DEAL!!! and will have to struggle and hustle a large percentage of their life.
You are wrong.
1) Redistribution of wealth has never worked and will never work. (How is life in utopian Venezuela been going?) It goes against human nature. And no amount whining and crying will change ever that. It is not the responsibility of developed nations to feed, house, and cloth the entire world. The welfare entitlement mentality has wrecked whole nations and countless generations. People must learn to be responsible for themselves.
'The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.' Margaret Thatcher
2) The earth has finite resources. Oil based fertilizers lead to an agricultural boom that allowed populations to grow. Now, with oil depletion, agricultural output will decline drastically. When I was young, there were only three billion people on the Earth, now there are over seven. It's unsustainable. Countries with lower birthrates will fare better than countries with sky high ones. (And don't tell me they need workers-robots, computers, and automation have eliminated the need for mass immigration.) This has happened throughout history. Food and (especially) water issues have destroyed empires (sometimes virtually overnight). People must take responsibility for their actions. Having countless children without the ability to take of them is grossly irresponsible. That these children spawn generations of children growing up fatherless and hungry is criminal. But guess what? In a post Christian world, we are not our brothers keepers. Many on DR1 reject religion and live godless hedonistic lives, yet many of them pull the religion card when they need a hand out.
3) When push comes to shove...
nobody said anything about REDISTRIBUTION of wealth. i said ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES.
the Malthusian notion that there is a finite amount of resources, and that eventually the population will outstrip them is static, and fallacious. go read contrary opinions by researchers like Ester Boserup, and you might have different points of view. the earth currently has 7.2 billion people. it is predicted that by 2050 it will have around 9 billion. that figure will remain constant up to around 2300..it will stabilize because of population growth dynamics. in order to maintain steady state population numbers, each female has to produce 2.1 children. as we know, China just about has that down to 1 per female. Russia is far below that number, and is looking at population crisis in the future, but not that of too many people, but aging population.
the Malthusian idea is static analysis, based on ceteris paribus. technological advances, and simple methodology, increases the productivity of the earth. that is a known fact, insofar the dairy animals and poultry are larger today than 100 years ago, and produce more milk and larger eggs. agricultural methodologies in land use contribute to greater yields. it is a matter of useage, not population. all the sub Saharan countries that are suffering from food insecurity have population densities that are way smaller than any known big city.
Where we live in the DR campo, there are a lot of young girls with babies. The "tradition" there is that when a young girl gets pregnant/"married", they build a small wooden house for her and her "husband" to live in, usually right behind their parent's home. Almost like a reward.
When we bought our land back around 1980, there was one house on the parcel next door [about 6-8 tareas]. Now there are 3 block homes across the front, and maybe 6 more 'shacks' behind them.
Needless to say, we built a wall to hide the "view".
When we bought our land back around 1980, there was one house on the parcel next door [about 6-8 tareas]. Now there are 3 block homes across the front, and maybe 6 more 'shacks' behind them.
Needless to say, we built a wall to hide the "view".
Redistribution of wealth is difficult to organize, but it does exist and has been done, notable in Western Europe.
There are no desperately poor people in Iceland or Singapore, and in the Arab oil sheikdoms of Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE and Bahrain, the citizens are not poor. The wealth of those countries has been redistributed,
.
You may not WANT it to work, but it is possible, it is preferable to having huge disparities of wealth, and can be accomplished.
There are no desperately poor people in Iceland or Singapore, and in the Arab oil sheikdoms of Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE and Bahrain, the citizens are not poor. The wealth of those countries has been redistributed,
.
You may not WANT it to work, but it is possible, it is preferable to having huge disparities of wealth, and can be accomplished.
60% of China's water is now toxic. 20% is polluted with Cadmium. Many countries suffer from water pollution and even worse, severe droughts. There is no longer enough water to go around.
Oil is rapidly nearing depletion. Fracking and oil shale are the results of desperation. Without oil based fertilizers, food production will crash. Without water, well you figure it out. Add to this soil erosion and misallocation of virtually every resource, and we are free falling into the abyss.
Those who argue against depletion are living in a rosy bubble.
You are wrong. No surprises there.
It is pointless to argue about morality with people like you because you have such a spectacularly warped sense of it. I prefer to think logically. No clean water=no life. Not enough clean water=war. Too many people-not enough water and food=mass death.
Children having children is only part of the equation. It's about a culture of irresponsibility.
It's already too late.
I've grown weary of trying to explain things to ridiculous people like you; I think I'll let death sort your type out.
The welfare state in western Europe is collapsing. What percentage of Greek school children go to school hungry everyday? (I've heard 25% -some say 40%.) Iceland has a tiny population.
Singapore is a tiny city state that is tightly controlled and highly regulated. (And they have started to expel foreigners and openly worry about food and water issues.)
The Gulf States have tiny native populations that live off oil subsidies) but ask the huge number of Pakistanis and Nepalese workers who live without air conditioning, decent food, decent housing, or basic medical services if they are part of that wealth distribution. Read about the 3rd world migrant population of the Gulf States-they are desperately poor and utterly miserable. It's easy to share wealth when the native population is tiny-a fraction of the total population.
Saudi Arabia has a huge underclass, so does Iran (which is basically a very poor country). Oil depletion is already affecting Saudi Arabia, leading to discontent and potential (virtually unavoidable unrest).
Your argument is falling to pieces. It didn't work in Cuba when the Soviet tit ran dry, and it's not working in that socialist paradise called Venezuela. Reality has no pity and shows no mercy.
Next you'll start talking about Monaco and Liechtenstein...:tired:
the fact that you refuse to approach this from an academic standpoint, and have to resort to attacks and ad hominems, tells me that you are clueless, and wounded.
so what is this now? i'm going to die, and you will live forever?
Europe is only collapsing in your mind.
First you tell me that you are not talking about wealth distribution, and then you go off about it.
Greece is atypical of the rest of Europe and everyone knows this. It is a poor example.
The fact is that wealth distribution is possible and does work. Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands have managed to make nearly every citizen middle class.
Saudi Arabia if ruled by tyrants. If the Koch Brothers were hereditary monarchs, we would approximate Saudi Arabia. Iran is ruled by religious doofuses and would not be poor if it had decent democratic leadership.
And don't tell me what I would do next. That is nonsense.
First you tell me that you are not talking about wealth distribution, and then you go off about it.
Greece is atypical of the rest of Europe and everyone knows this. It is a poor example.
The fact is that wealth distribution is possible and does work. Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands have managed to make nearly every citizen middle class.
Saudi Arabia if ruled by tyrants. If the Koch Brothers were hereditary monarchs, we would approximate Saudi Arabia. Iran is ruled by religious doofuses and would not be poor if it had decent democratic leadership.
And don't tell me what I would do next. That is nonsense.
by the way, Ogre, in the equation between population growth and resources like food, which do you consider population growth to be; the independent variable, or the dependent variable?
Your post is nonsense. The countries with the worst wealth distribution in the world are Denmark and France, followed by Singapore.
Income + wealth inequality = More trouble for society
No, I don't expect to live forever. I also don't expect someone to buy me food, clothing, and pay for my housing.
Academically? In your inside out world, what does that mean? What about my depletion argument can you not understand? (Oh, wait, no I've opened a Pandora's Box...)
Okay, back to the DR (I'll avoid explaining in detail how wrong you are about Europe). The DR cannot support its population. Water, soil, agriculture can only be put under only so much stress. One need only look at Haiti next door to see what happens when people fail to consider such things.
I find it interesting that some here seem to blame poverty for a high rate of underage pregnancy (presumably by older males).
The underage pregnancy issue seems to me, to be more related to education, rule of law and morality, than economics (poverty). The poverty argument is a poor excuse in and of itself, unless you believe poor people are more immoral than rich people.
One can be poor, moral, law abiding and educated. Remove these elements from society and society begins to collapse, as many here on DR1 can attest to.
The underage pregnancy issue seems to me, to be more related to education, rule of law and morality, than economics (poverty). The poverty argument is a poor excuse in and of itself, unless you believe poor people are more immoral than rich people.
One can be poor, moral, law abiding and educated. Remove these elements from society and society begins to collapse, as many here on DR1 can attest to.